Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that internal test-wallet transfers are filtered out — but says nothing about time window, currency, aggregation level, or whether results are cached/live.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the scope constraint placed first, nothing redundant. Slight deduction for vague wording ("truth") that costs clarity without saving space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero params, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the remaining burden is telling the agent what comes back. The description does not indicate whether the response is a single revenue total, a per-period breakdown, or per-source figures, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it or a sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States it returns AgentLot revenue figures with settlement backing, which is a recognizable verb+resource. However, the phrase "revenue truth" is marketing-flavored rather than concrete, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like auto_money_status or money_run_status, which plausibly report similar financial state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to call this versus auto_money_status, money_run_status, or local_wallet_status. The exclusion of internal test-wallet transfers hints at a use case (real revenue accounting) but never states when an agent should prefer this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.